On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 6:04 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 13/05/2009, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:09 AM, sebb wrote:
> > > Of course external dependencies - to first level at least - *ought* to
> > > be documented to ensure the consumer knows what else is need
On 13/05/2009, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:09 AM, sebb wrote:
> > Of course external dependencies - to first level at least - *ought* to
> > be documented to ensure the consumer knows what else is needed to use
> > the product, but they go elsewhere, e.g. in th
Hi,
On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 12:09 AM, sebb wrote:
> Of course external dependencies - to first level at least - *ought* to
> be documented to ensure the consumer knows what else is needed to use
> the product, but they go elsewhere, e.g. in the README and/or on the
> web-site.
A Maven-based proj
On May 12, 2009, at 3:09 PM, sebb wrote:
On 12/05/2009, Craig L Russell wrote:
On May 12, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
Earlier, sebb wrote:
I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through
all the
NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
th
On 12/05/2009, Craig L Russell wrote:
>
> On May 12, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
>
>
> >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through all the
> > > NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
> > > the top-level L & N files
On May 12, 2009, at 2:08 PM, Brian Fox wrote:
I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through all
the
NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
the top-level L & N files need to relate to the entire contents.
Transitively or just for the first l
>
>
>
> I don't think it's OK to expect users to have to trawl through all the
> NOTICE and LICENSE files to find all the required information. IMO,
> the top-level L & N files need to relate to the entire contents.
>
Transitively or just for the first level dependencies?
Hi,
On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 11:44 AM, sebb wrote:
> On 11/05/2009, Jukka Zitting wrote:
>> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:43 PM, sebb wrote:
>> > There are rather a lot of LICENSE and NOTICE files dotted around the
>> > source archive.
>>
>> That's in anticipation of the future release model that
On 11/05/2009, Jukka Zitting wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> > There are rather a lot of LICENSE and NOTICE files dotted around the
> > source archive.
>
>
> That's in anticipation of the future release model that Sling is
> targetting. Instead of a big bang
Hi,
On Sat, May 9, 2009 at 10:43 PM, sebb wrote:
> There are rather a lot of LICENSE and NOTICE files dotted around the
> source archive.
That's in anticipation of the future release model that Sling is
targetting. Instead of a big bang release like this or the previous
release, Sling is plannin
On 09/05/2009, Carsten Ziegeler wrote:
> The Apache Sling community voted on and has approved a proposal to
> release Apache Sling. Pursuant to the Releases section of the Incubation
> Policy we would now like to request the permission of the Incubator PMC
> to publish the tarball on the Sling
11 matches
Mail list logo
